Hacker News Reader

Comment by xethos | Hacker News Reader

Respectfully, your favourite example depresses me. Pre-2013 or so I would have agreed, but North America, when faced with "Too many parents are accidentally running over their children in driveways and parking lots", chose to mandate backup cameras instead.

View on HN

I'm not from the US and may be missing some context, but in what way mandating backup cameras makes a society less open for mass and light transit?

The mandate didn't make the US less open to that, it's just that the US is so in love with cars that we don't seriously consider alternatives to driving as solutions to anything. If there was a meeting and the topic was "what to do about the gigantic number of car-related deaths every year", and someone said "maybe we stop driving so much and give people other options of getting around?" they would be laughed out of the room.

The people that make rules about car design have no relation at all with the ones that make rules about urban transportation.

> and someone said "maybe we stop driving so much and give people other options of getting around?" they would be laughed out of the room.

not in an open-carry state they wouldn't.

Shooting someone, lethally or otherwise, for laughing at you, is seen as an appropriate response in open-carry states? If it is, maybe the people pushing for such laws should drop the "Snowflake" line and take a look in the mirror, because this shit is not normal.

And if it's not, what's the point of this comment? To look tough online?

Different times, different solutions. Backup cameras were not a solution in 1970's Netherlands otherwise maybe it would have been considered.

Idea was that things are not set into stone and change faster than we realize. And there will always be good and bad examples (and if I think about it, probably the backup cameras solution nowadays is not that bad anyhow).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com